(CNSNews.com) - If you want proof that President Obama's Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers."

President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.

He says his questions remain unanswered.

"Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it,” Boehner wrote to Sebelius.

The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.

“For our efforts to remove the bill's abortion funding, we were called 'deceivers' by President Obama and 'liars' by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.

"This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama's Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.

"While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.

McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions. And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.

Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

petegz28

07-14-2010, 02:12 PM

What happened to his "executive order" forbidding abortion to be funded with tax payer $'s?

Just another example of how this piece of shit President does his business.

CoMoChief

07-14-2010, 02:12 PM

ROFL

What a ****ing liar this administration is......it's downright sad, and laughable at the same time.

you could catch BO red-handed with his hand in the cookie jar taking cookies and he'd look at you right in the face and claim that he didn't do it.

petegz28

07-14-2010, 02:15 PM

This is just another slap in the face to the people of this country. Many who opposed this bill, on both sides of the isle were told abortion would not be funded with tax payer $'s. Not even 6 months after it has passed we see who was right and who was blowing smoke.

FTR, my stance on abortion is, if you want one you pay for it. The only time I would accept federal $'s paying for it is if there was a legitiamte threat to the life of the mother.

petegz28

07-14-2010, 02:20 PM

And before we get orange and others defending this in the form of "elective abortions will not be covered", you mark my words, there will be an increase in the number of medically necessary abortions.

orange

07-14-2010, 02:28 PM

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69384

Actual executive order:

Section 1. Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance.

Abortion opponents say the administration is already breaking the promise it made as part of the new health law not to fund elective abortions. It was that promise — in the form of an executive order by President Obama issued in March — that helped secure the last few votes needed to win final approval of the landmark measure in the House.

Only their complaints appear to be a bit, well, premature.

The National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, and House Minority Leader John Boehner, (R-OH) are up in arms about what they contend is Pennsylvania's plan to provide abortion coverage to people who sign up for the state's new high-risk health insurance plan.

According to the NRLC's Douglas Johnson, the program approved for Pennsylvania "will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania." He says that's because while the proposal itself states that "elective abortions are not covered," in practice that's an obstacle easily surmounted.

That's because language elsewhere in Pennsylvania law allows a doctor to perform an abortion if that physician believes it "'necessary' based on 'all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.'"

According to the abortion foes, that means basically abortion on demand, for any reason, except sex-selection (which is specifically cited as impermissible). Or, as Rep. Boehner put it, "This is the boldest admission yet from the Obama administration that the President’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham."

Only there's one problem. Both Obama Administration and Pennsylvania officials say the NRLC's interpretation is simply incorrect — elective abortions will NOT be allowed in the new program.

"Pennsylvania has not signed a contract yet to start operating their Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan," said HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus. And when they do, she added, "our contract that states are signing says clearly that we will be issuing guidance on the administration of Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan so they know they will have to live by our guidance per the contract" when it comes to abortion coverage.

And that's no problem, says Rosanne Placey, of the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance. "Very simply, federal law controls. We know that," she said. "We absolutely do not cover elective abortions.

"We are drawing down federal money. We do that in more that one program," she said, including Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Programs, which similarly ban abortion. "We understand that."

Meanwhile, the assault has drawn complaints from some unexpected quarters.

Democrats for Life, which opposes abortion but supported the health law, was quick to praise Pennsylvania for being quick to get its program up and running, and chide those who would attack it. "While Republicans continue to find reasons to criticize and mischaracterize aspects of the reform bill, we will work to ensure the law will provide affordable and accessible health care for millions of Americans while upholding the longstanding ban on public funding of abortion," said DFL Executive Director Kristen Day.

The more abortion-rights leaning Faith in Public Life blog also took the complainers to task. "Rather than checking the facts, National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council and John Boehner chose to spread misinformation on the sensitive topic of abortion," wrote Dan Nejfelt. "Once again we see the issue of abortion used as a political weapon serving partisan ends."

with all the other issues we have, i'm having a hard time getting upset over this.

King_Chief_Fan

07-14-2010, 02:44 PM

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38068

orange

07-14-2010, 02:52 PM

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38068

... and?

The Administration backing the Kenyan Constitution is not news.

petegz28

07-14-2010, 02:55 PM

Boy, who didn't see orange coming in with 10 links to defend this shit?

Pitt Gorilla

07-14-2010, 02:56 PM

with all the other issues we have, i'm having a hard time getting upset over this.Some people just prefer to be upset.

petegz28

07-14-2010, 02:58 PM

Some people just prefer to be upset.

Some people also prefer the President keep his word. Which we all knew was BS to beging with.

The Mad Crapper

07-14-2010, 03:01 PM

Boy, who didn't see orange coming in with 10 links to defend this shit?

LMAO

He knows no shame.

bsp4444

07-14-2010, 03:02 PM

Boy, who didn't see orange coming in with 10 links to defend this shit?

What would satisfy you, then?

orange

07-14-2010, 03:03 PM

Some people also prefer the President keep his word. Which we all knew was BS to beging with.

Some people prefer to post partisan bullshit easily rebuttable in minutes.

Amazing that you thought that would stand. The name "Boehner" should have set off your BS Detector.

Now that you've seen the facts, I bet you believe now more than ever that Obamacare is going to finance abortion on demand.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=230665

petegz28

07-14-2010, 03:12 PM

Some people prefer to post partisan bullshit easily rebuttable in minutes.

Amazing that you thought that would stand. The name "Boehner" should have set off your BS Detector.

Now that you've seen the facts, I bet you believe now more than ever that Obamacare is going to finance abortion on demand.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=230665

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6879514&postcount=5

And before we get orange and others defending this in the form of "elective abortions will not be covered", you mark my words, there will be an increase in the number of medically necessary abortions.

I called your shit before you even got here.

The Mad Crapper

07-14-2010, 03:16 PM

the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

True or false.

jiveturkey

07-14-2010, 03:17 PM

Boy, who didn't see orange coming in with 10 links to defend this shit?I see this posted a lot and I don't understand it. It's almost of preemptive when someone posts a new thread.

It seems silly that anyone would be happy just reading one side of a story.

Pitt Gorilla

07-14-2010, 03:19 PM

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6879514&postcount=5

I called your shit before you even got here.Is that akin to predicting that Pete, Honest, and Crapper are going to post a bunch of whiny/upset threads in DC?

petegz28

07-14-2010, 03:19 PM

the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

True or false.

He skipped that part, I guess???

orange

07-14-2010, 03:20 PM

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6879514&postcount=5

So you KNEW Boehner is lying, and you still posted it. Amazing! LMAO

petegz28

07-14-2010, 03:20 PM

Is that akin to predicting that Pete, Honest, and Crapper are going to post a bunch of whiny/upset threads in DC?

You're right, we should all be pickled tink with Obama, like you.

The Mad Crapper

07-14-2010, 03:20 PM

Some people prefer to post partisan bullshit easily rebuttable in minutes.

the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

True or false.

petegz28

07-14-2010, 03:20 PM

So you KNEW Boehner is lying, and you still posted it. Amazing! LMAO

No, I just knew what your lame attempt at defending your hero would be.

orange

07-14-2010, 03:21 PM

He skipped that part, I guess???

I didn't skip it at all. In fact, I posted A WHOLE ARTICLE about it that you apparently don't want to read because it busts your chops!

Pitt Gorilla

07-14-2010, 03:25 PM

You're right, we should all be pickled tink with Obama, like you.I understand that simple logic often fails you, but I'll give you a hand here; I'm not "pickled tink" with many of his policies, but I also don't feel the need to incessantly run around crying about it on a football board. I think it's great that you do and encourage you to do what you need to do, but that doesn't make it any less predictable (which I believe was your original focus.)

petegz28

07-14-2010, 03:25 PM

I didn't skip it at all. In fact, I posted A WHOLE ARTICLE about it that you apparently don't want to read because it busts your chops!

Yea you did. I'll put that on the list with everything else, like unemployment being capped at 8%, 90% of the oil spill being contained by the end of June, the HC bill creating 400k jobs immediately, commisions not going to be created for everything, no illegals working construction in NV, etc, etc.

The Mad Crapper

07-14-2010, 03:29 PM

f

orange

07-14-2010, 03:31 PM

I'll put that on the list

Right idea, wrong list. It belongs with Death Panels, INTERPOL kidnappings, Obama's private army, gun-grabbing and the rest.

The Mad Crapper

07-14-2010, 03:35 PM

Is that akin to predicting that Pete, Honest, and Crapper are going to post a bunch of whiny/upset threads in DC?

Aw, look, orange got his ass kicked in yesterday, so his boyfriend is here today to try and straighten shit out. LMAO

Anyway...

True or false:

the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

dirk digler

07-14-2010, 03:38 PM

True or false:

the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

From reading Orange's article it would be false.

And that's no problem, says Rosanne Placey, of the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance. "Very simply, federal law controls. We know that," she said. "We absolutely do not cover elective abortions.

The Mad Crapper

07-14-2010, 03:41 PM

From reading Orange's article it would be false.

So according to Orange-- a certifiable liar--- and his "source", the federal government is not giving $160 million dollars to PA for an emergency abortion fund?

petegz28

07-14-2010, 03:46 PM

Right idea, wrong list. It belongs with Death Panels, INTERPOL kidnappings, Obama's private army, gun-grabbing and the rest.

I'll keep it where I said I would. The say one thing, do another column.

dirk digler

07-14-2010, 03:51 PM

So according to Orange-- a certifiable liar--- and his "source", the federal government is not giving $160 million dollars to PA for an emergency abortion fund?

If he is a certifiable liar what are you?

orange

07-14-2010, 03:52 PM

Now that you've seen the facts, I bet you believe now more than ever that Obamacare is going to finance abortion on demand.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=230665

I'll keep it where I said I would. The say one thing, do another column.

Wow, you're as predictable as I am! :thumb:

Pants

07-14-2010, 03:56 PM

Aw, look, orange got his ass kicked in yesterday, so his boyfriend is here today to try and straighten shit out. LMAO

Anyway...

True or false:

the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

Which abortions are legal in the state of PA?

JonesCrusher

07-14-2010, 03:58 PM

That's because language elsewhere in Pennsylvania law allows a doctor to perform an abortion if that physician believes it "'necessary' based on 'all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.'"

Wouldn't 100% of abortions fall under one of these categories. Every pregnancy threatens the well being of a woman. Sounds like it will be as easy to get a state funded abortion as it is to get medical marijuana in California.

orange

07-14-2010, 04:02 PM

That's because language elsewhere in Pennsylvania law allows a doctor to perform an abortion if that physician believes it "'necessary' based on 'all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman.'"

Wouldn't 100% of abortions fall under one of these categories. Every pregnancy threatens the well being of a woman. Sounds like it will be as easy to get a state funded abortion as it is to get medical marijuana in California.

The language in PA law is not binding on the U.S. (Ask AZ - they can tell you stories).

"Pennsylvania has not signed a contract yet to start operating their Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan," said HHS Spokeswoman Jenny Backus. And when they do, she added, "our contract that states are signing says clearly that we will be issuing guidance on the administration of Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan so they know they will have to live by our guidance per the contract" when it comes to abortion coverage.

The Mad Crapper

07-15-2010, 07:29 AM

NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson informed LifeNews.com of the first set and spoke with Kathryn Lopez of National Review about the abortion funding in the western state.

He said New Mexico state officials have put together a new $37 million high-risk pool that will begin enrolling members on July 1 and they will begin receiving benefits August 1 -- including federal funding for elective abortions according to the state insurance department's website. After the insured pays the deductible, taxpayer dollars from the federal government cover the remaining 80 percent.

"HHS has been hiding most of these high-risk plans, including the plan that HHS will administer directly in 21 states. Of the four state plans we've managed to ferret out, two provided coverage of essentially all abortions — Pennsylvania and New Mexico," Johnson told National Review.

"This is part of a pattern, under this administration, of making 'soft' rhetorical statements on abortion policy, but consistently promoting and expanding abortion through low-visibility administrative decisions. The administration's heavy funding of groups pushing a proposed new pro-abortion constitution in Kenya is another example," Johnson added.

House minority leader John Boehner also sent a statement to National Review about the New Mexico funding.

"In just the past 24 hours, we've learned of two states in which the new federal high-risk insurance programs created under Obamacare and approved by the Obama administration will use federal funds to pay for abortion, despite promises by the White House and Democratic leaders that no such funding would occur under Obamacare," he said.

"These developments provide stark confirmation that President Obama's executive order last spring was little more than a political ploy to ensure passage of Obamacare by circumventing the will of the American people, who are clearly opposed to taxpayer-funded abortion," the Republican leader added.

Lopez, of National Review, opined on the situation and urged voters to hold accountable in November those lawmakers who voted for the pro-abortion health care plan.

"The Obama administration lied, and members of Congress who claim to be pro-life went along with the sham. There should, indeed, be electoral consequences," she said.

Related web sites:
National Right to Life - http://www.nrlc.org

The Mad Crapper

07-15-2010, 06:22 PM

Actual executive order:

Section 1. Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.

So basically all a pregnant broad has to say is "I was raped" and federal dollars can be used to pay for it.

By the way, your link doesn't work.

I guess Boehner didn't read it

Here Cockslapped, read this (note the date, Perry Mason):

Federal Funds Will Be Used to Pay for Abortion Under Speaker Pelosi’s Government Takeover of Health Care

November 4, 2009

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it. A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage.

Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is proposing a 2,032-page government takeover of health care that directs the new government-run plan to cover elective abortions, and establishes an accounting mechanism to justify the federal government subsidizing private plans that cover abortion. Under Speaker Pelosi’s plan, federal funds will be used to pay for the benefits covered under the government-run plan – even if the federal government contracts out the services. The accounting mechanism included in the Pelosi bill requires individuals to pay abortion premiums into a health care trust fund that will be used to pay for the abortion services.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), when individuals pay a premium – or private funds – into the U.S. Treasury, the funds become government or federal funds. Furthermore, claims that the Hyde Amendment will apply to the government-run plan are incorrect. The government-run plan will not receive funding through the traditional appropriations process; therefore, the Hyde Amendment does not apply.

There is no getting around it: under Speaker Pelosi’s government takeover of health care, federal funds will be used to pay for abortions under the government-run plan, and to subsidize individual plans that include abortion.
As an alternative to Speaker Pelosi’s bill, House Republicans are offering a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

Guru

07-15-2010, 06:41 PM

America. **** yeah.:shake:

irishjayhawk

07-15-2010, 08:58 PM

Who's dumber in this thread: The Mad Crapper or pete?

The Mad Crapper

07-16-2010, 05:03 AM

If he is a certifiable liar what are you?

Dirk, let me break it down for you---

I'm a conservate, a right winger. YOu know that. I don't hide it, I wear it on my sleeve.

orange is a leftist, but he puts on a front like he's a moderate.

That's dishonesty.

And FYI one has to be dishonest to be a leftist in America. A leftist cannot sell his or her agenda to the American people on face value. Everything is done by stealth. the passage of obamacare is an example of that.

I've caught Banyon and orange in bald faced lies. Sure they are lawyers, and they like to weasel out of it with semantics and what not, but it's lying and they know it.

You show me where I have lied.

banyon

07-17-2010, 12:50 AM

Dirk, let me break it down for you---

I'm a conservate, a right winger. YOu know that. I don't hide it, I wear it on my sleeve.

orange is a leftist, but he puts on a front like he's a moderate.

That's dishonesty.

And FYI one has to be dishonest to be a leftist in America. A leftist cannot sell his or her agenda to the American people on face value. Everything is done by stealth. the passage of obamacare is an example of that.

I've caught Banyon and orange in bald faced lies. Sure they are lawyers, and they like to weasel out of it with semantics and what not, but it's lying and they know it.

You show me where I have lied.

What lie, you cheap f*ck?

go bowe

07-17-2010, 01:24 AM

Dirk, let me break it down for you---

I'm a conservate, a right winger. YOu know that. I don't hide it, I wear it on my sleeve.

orange is a leftist, but he puts on a front like he's a moderate.

That's dishonesty.

And FYI one has to be dishonest to be a leftist in America. A leftist cannot sell his or her agenda to the American people on face value. Everything is done by stealth. the passage of obamacare is an example of that.

I've caught Banyon and orange in bald faced lies. Sure they are lawyers, and they like to weasel out of it with semantics and what not, but it's lying and they know it.

You show me where I have lied.orange is a lawyer?

so that's what's wrong with him... :p :p :p

greg63

07-17-2010, 05:41 AM

America. **** yeah.:shake:

Yup, lets be sure to save the whales though.

The Mad Crapper

07-17-2010, 07:20 AM

What lie, you cheap f*ck?

I saved the link but switched browsers so I lost it. But it was a thread where you and that other flamer Adept Havelock were tag teaming me ruthlessly, but you slipped up and I caught you in a lie.

You are a dishonest, leftist scumbag.

The Mad Crapper

07-17-2010, 07:23 AM

orange is a lawyer?

so that's what's wrong with him... :p :p :p

Yeah I know.

I'm sure he's a card carrying member of the ACLU, but if you ask him, he'll deny it.

Why would anyone be a member of an organization they are afraid to admit they are a member of? Because they are a moonbat, and moonbats have to lie to forward their sick, twisted, depraved agenda.

bsp4444

07-17-2010, 07:25 AM

you and that other flamer Adept Havelock were tag teaming me ruthlessly.

I think this is all that really needs to be said.

The Mad Crapper

07-17-2010, 07:27 AM

I think this is all that really needs to be said.

You have a sick mind.

LMAO

banyon

07-17-2010, 09:23 AM

I saved the link but switched browsers so I lost it. But it was a thread where you and that other flamer Adept Havelock were tag teaming me ruthlessly, but you slipped up and I caught you in a lie.

You are a dishonest, leftist scumbag.

Uh, huh. So, this one time a long time ago, which you can't specifically remember, and you lost the link to, and can't search for for some reason, you saw this.

Was that the thread where you didn't understand the difference between a mistake and a lie? That's my recollection.

(which I could probably riddle this forum with if using examples from you).

You really showed me, huh?

I've been off this forum for several days, and here you are in every other thread, whining and bad mouthing me and this is what you have?

Even if your one insanely misremembered thread post were accurate (which it isn't), it wouldn't be grounds for the sort of "habitual liar" case you are whining about in all these threads.

Yeah, patteeu, this guy is really a great asset to this forum. :rolleyes:

orange

07-17-2010, 11:57 AM

orange is a lawyer?

No, but I play one on CP.

And I believe she has guessed wrongly. I assume the FIVE plaintiffs (and counting) have reasonably competent lawyers. And I assume the Justice Department which is examining it has reasonably competent lawyers. All those lawyers are certainly at least as competent as me, a complete layman. So when O'Reilly and Kelly wonder "Why? Why would they do this?" the answer is obvious - they're not going to base their cases - real or potential - on "mere questioning."

Was that the thread where you didn't understand the difference between a mistake and a lie?

Hmmmmmmm... that rings a bell. But it wasn't that I didn't understand, it was just you playing your usual lawyer semantics games.

You have an outstanding ability of couching everything in such a way as to imply one thing while stating another so that if someone was to suggest you were making the implication, you can turn around and say "no thats not what I meant" even though in fact, it was what you meant. But since somebody shined a light on it, and you couldn't defend it, you can just say "you misunderstood". The strategy only works when nobody challenges it.

It was very similar to the game your partner in communism orange played in the other thread using the term "complainant" in trying to suggest that their were no witnesses to the criminal behavior of the the NBPP's. As if only a "complainant" validates whether or not a crime occured.

It's being dishonest and it's something you two are very good at.

I'll be sure and point it out with much more frequency from now on. That way we won't have any more confusion on the matter.

:thumb:

banyon

07-17-2010, 02:23 PM

Hmmmmmmm... that rings a bell. But it wasn't that I didn't understand, it was just you playing your usual lawyer semantics games.

You have an outstanding ability of couching everything in such a way as to imply one thing while stating another so that if someone was to suggest you were making the implication, you can turn around and say "no thats not what I meant" even though in fact, it was what you meant. But since somebody shined a light on it, and you couldn't defend it, you can just say "you misunderstood". The strategy only works when nobody challenges it.

It was very similar to the game your partner in communism orange played in the other thread using the term "complainant" in trying to suggest that their were no witnesses to the criminal behavior of the the NBPP's. As if only a "complainant" validates whether or not a crime occured.

It's being dishonest and it's something you two are very good at.

I'll be sure and point it out with much more frequency from now on. That way we won't have any more confusion on the matter.

:thumb:

Right. As usual, you have tried to sell a 5 yard completion on 1st and 10 as a super bowl victory. Lots of hot air, no substance whatsoever.

The Mad Crapper

07-17-2010, 02:26 PM

Right. As usual, you have tried to sell a 5 yard completion on 1st and 10 as a super bowl victory. Lots of hot air, no substance whatsoever.

Banyon, are you a member of the ACLU?

banyon

07-17-2010, 02:29 PM

Banyon, are you a member of the ACLU?

No, why?

The Mad Crapper

07-17-2010, 02:30 PM

No, why?

Just wondering.

banyon

07-17-2010, 02:32 PM

Just wondering.

Just looking for some other ad hominem label to store away when your argument fails on the next topic?

The Mad Crapper

07-17-2010, 04:09 PM

Just looking for some other ad hominem label to store away when your argument fails on the next topic?